UK Against Fluoridation

Monday, August 31, 2009

Former deputy council leader Guy Harkin to stand in by-election2:10pm Sunday 30th August 2009A FORMER deputy leader of Bolton Council, who once suggested naming a street after Hitler, is to stand in the Crompton by-election.

Former Hulton councillor Guy Harkin, who lost his seat in the all-out elections of 2004, has been selected by the Labour party to contest the seat on October 1.He has also been a supporter of water fluoridation and is a former director of the NHS North West Fluoridation Evaluation Group.

Where's the proof?IN Tasmania, fluoridated since 1953, the people have some of the worst teeth in Australia -with a tooth being pulled once every three minutes.According to the Australian Health and Medical Research Council:• 11.2 per cent of Tasmanians aged 25 to 44 wear dentures, almost double the national average.• A tooth is extracted every three minutes in public dental services around Australia.• Tasmania has the highest percentage of people wearing a denture in the nation.• The rate of 23.1 per cent is 4.6 per cent higher than national average of 18.5 per cent.• In all the age categories from 25 to 65-plus, Tasmania is significantly above the national average.• 41 per cent of Tasmanians in the 45 to 64-year-old category have dentures, which is 12 per cent above the national average.This confirms what the York Report found -that there is no reliable proof that fluoridation works.In the UK, the fluoridated West Midlands is quoted as having some of the best teeth in the country but they have a large dental budget. Even fluoridated Coventry recently received an additional £lm for its dental budget.If the scheme in Southampton goes ahead they will not be putting in sodium fluoride or the calcium fluoride found in areas of the UK but 112.3 tonnes of hexafluorosilicic acid captured waste from the phosphate industry with its two per cent of heavy metals including, lead, arsenic and mercury. This toxic mix will get dumped into our water supply every year.Olga Senior (In My View, July 27) suggested the public do not understand complex health issues, can she, or Professor Newton on behalf of the Strategic Health Authority, explain to us mere mortals why Tasmania has such a dismal record of dental health after 56 years of fluoridation?BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam,

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Fluoride in water studies international in scope and constantly updated Written by Citizen staff Friday, 28 August 2009 Some city councillors have recently indicated they want more Canadian studies. Let’s clarify something. There is no such thing as “Canadian,” “American” or “Pakistani” science. Most investigative science involves several scientists, working as a team on a common problem; for example, Dr. Paul Connett and Dr. Hardy Limeback. Dr. Paul Connett, BA (Hon), Cambridge Univ., 1962; Ph D Chemistry, Dartmouth College, NH, 1983; tenured, full professor, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y. Now retired, he heads up the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which boosts an international coalition of 1,991 dentists, environmentalists, scientists and doctors who seek to abolish fluoride in the public drinking supply. The group suggests that when fluoride is ingested, the chemical lowers IQ in children and can cause damage to developing brains and teeth. Studies also state long-term exposure and damage to bones and is linked to bladder cancer. His web site: www.FluorideAlert.org Dr. Harvey Limeback, B Sc, Ph D, DDS, Associate Professor & Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Mississauga Campus. He recently hosted the 17th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research. Topic: Fluoride - Bone and Brain Effects, Aug. 7-11, 2008, Toronto, Canada.Dr. Limeback has said: “Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never.”Dr. Limeback’s web site: www.utoronto.ca/dentistry/facultyresearch.Dr. Connett and Dr. Limeback together did a study entitled “Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence.” A System Review. International Association for Dental Research, 83rd General Session and Exhibition, Toronto, July 4, 2008.In summer of 2008, the following report reviewed the published studies indicating an association of high fluoride exposure and reduced IQ (particularly in children). The fluoride levels in water in this study range from 0.088 - 0.094 ppm.A similar study, conducted by five Chinese epidemiologists, the Tang et al, was entitled: Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence, Aug. 10, 2008. This information was found on the Fluoride Action Network.These two groups will without a doubt consult with each other to determine the salient points of these 23 published studies report on Fluoride/Human IQ Studies. So the consultation process is necessarily international in scope. As new evidence becomes available, teams will evaluate it, and update the new material. It’s a never-ending process whereby evaluating teams strive to keep up with the latest studies.Marilyn Juds, founder and researcher,Prince George Safe Water Coalition (www.pgswc.ca)

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Close-minded Written by Cathy FortinPrince George Thursday, 27 August 2009 Re: Council spits out fluoride protest (story, Aug. 25).I was at the city council meeting on Monday and witnessed the short shrift given to the fluoridation question. My goodness, what a group of closed-minded people we have on city council.Research has shown that fluoridated water is dangerous, leading to many problems including decreased thyroid function, increased uptake of aluminum, arthritic-like conditions, poor kidney function and many other conditions including abnormal discolouration and mottling of teeth.Research has also shown that the benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is topical and not systemic. There are many studies and information online to back this up.Income level is more of a deciding factor in the number of cavities in children's teeth. That is, if you have more money you go to the dentist and have the fluoride treatments.We are exposed to so many toxins in our air, water and food that it is hard to believe that we actually put one in our water and willingly pay to do so. There is a huge movement afoot to stop fluoridation in many cities across North America and it was embarrassing to listen to the righteous, uninformed statements made by members of our council. I can't believe I voted for Coun. Stolz.Please take the time to learn about this issue and not dismiss it with such disregard. Our health is at stake here.Cathy FortinPrince George

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORKhttp://www.FluorideAlert.Org FAN Bulletin 1090: Good and Bad News from the UKAugust 28, 2009,The way that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) pushed through fluoridation in Southampton, and other Hampshire communities in the UK, was a shocking exercise in government sponsored propaganda and manipulation. The last minute trashing of the NRC report and the 23 IQ studies by a "government friendly" consulting firm (Bazian Ltd.) was the last straw in a campaign which would have made George Orwell blink.

However, it has produced some good news. Citizens were so appalled by the way they were treated (72% of those polled voted against fluoridation) that they have sought and secured a "judicial review" on the way this measure was pushed through.

We heard yesterday that the very fact that this judicial review is in the works has put on hold the efforts of another SHA (North West SHA) to force through fluoridation. This hiccup has also allowed the authority to look at the staggering costs of such a program. Their current water program costs less than £6 million (about 9 million dollars) - it would jump to £200 million if fluoridation was introduced!

Here is the letter we received yesterday from Linda and Dave Forrest:

Dear All,

We have obtained some excellent news today. Please see attached extract from the Chief Executive's Report to be presented to the SHA's Board Meeting on 3 September 2009 (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf). The main points stated in the report are:-

1. "It would be irresponsible for NHS North West to commit further resources to water fluoridation until the outcome of the Judicial Review is known and this has significant consequences".

2. "It is apparent from this report that costs have increased significantly"……….." Based on the most recent figures, the capital cost of a region-wide fluoridation scheme is around £200 million"…………. "The current annual operating cost of a region-wide scheme is £5.78 million".

3. "The Board is asked to note that no further work will be done on the Water Fluoridation Project until after the outcome of the Judicial Review is known. A further report will be provided at that time".

Our thanks must go to Hampshire Against Fluoridation and all the people who have helped them for their tremendous effort to stop fluoridation. Without their efforts our SHA might now be proposing for us to have a Consultation. The nearly doubling of the costs might also have had an impact on their decision. We will obviously have to stay vigilant and hope the Judicial Review is successful.

Best wishes,

Linda and Dave

So heartiest congratulations to Hampshire Against Fluoridation for all the painstaking efforts to fight this proposal in Southampton. You can email Linda and Dave Forrest and the citizens comprising Hampshire Against Fluoridation via John Spottiswoode who I am sure will share your thoughts with the gang.

Let's celebrate this news around the fluoridation fighting world. However, in reading further what the Chief Executive (North West SHA) had to say about the granting of the judicial review to Hampshire Against Fluoridation it sounds pretty ominous. We shouldn't drink too much champagne.

Apparently, the Honourable Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that the South Central SHA's "decision-making process was unimpeachable." Having observed this process very closely in four separate trips to Southampton (including appearing in three public fora) all I can say is WOW! If this is what the judge considers an "unimpeachable" process, the UK is in deep trouble. The whole thing was a sham from beginning to end - the end coming with Bazian Ltd., demonstrating that they don't know the difference between "concentration" and "dose." Even a high school student should be able to work out this difference. Whether or not fluoride causes harm depends on how much water one drinks whether the concentration of fluoride is 1, 2, 3 or 4 ppm.

To be more specific: these consultants argued that the NRC (2006) review findings were not relevant to Southampton. However, the NRC recommended that the current US EPA standard of 4 ppm be lowered. How can Bazian argue that a level of harm occurring at some level less than 4 ppm (NRC, 2006) was not relevant for people drinking water at 1 ppm? Especially, when the authority to decide what that number "less than 4 ppm" should be (the US EPA Water Division) has yet to make the determination! Of course, we know why Bazian argued this; this is what the British government wanted, and Bazian Ltd. belongs to the oldest profession in the world.

The Chief Executive officer of North West SHA wrote (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf):

14. ...Permission (for a judicial review) was sought on two grounds.

1. When the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 were laid before Parliament, statements were made indicating that it remained Government policy that Strategic Health Authorities should proceed with water fluoridation only when the local population was in favour. However the regulation itself does not put that policy into effect.

2. That NHS South Central did not have regard to the cogency of the arguments for and against fluoridation.

15. A decision on these matters was announced on 23rd July 2009. The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting gave limited permission for a Judicial Review of Ground 1. He also said that determination of the claim required the active participation of the Secretary of State for Health and declared him an interested party. He did not uphold Ground 2 on the basis that it was not reasonably arguable and that in all other respects the "decision-making process was unimpeachable."

16. In response to this, the applicant has sought an oral hearing to try to overturn the decision against Ground 2.

Meanwhile, below are excerpts from other related stories on the situation in the UK. We are very glad to see that the local Southampton newspaper (Daily Echo) is calling for a referendum. The SHA chiefs answered back,"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds!". Their arrogance is breathtaking. But again the good news is that the UK fluoridation juggernaut has been delayed, allowing more reasonable (and honest) people to deliberate.

Paul Connett

June 27, 2009, Daily Echo backs calls for a referendum on fluoride issue, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo"GIVE us a vote. The Daily Echo today backs calls for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water. Campaigners argue that faith in democracy has been damaged by health chiefs approving the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes, despite widespread opposition. Calls for a direct referendum on the controversial plans have been made by opponents of fluoride, and one of the city's most powerful politicians. Earlier this month campaigners delivered a 15,300-name petition to Downing Street, urging the Prime Minister to step into the row over fluoridation. During last year's public consultation, more than 10,000 responses were submitted to South Central Strategic Health Authority. Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent said they were against it..."http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Daily-Echo-backs-calls-for-a-referendum-on-fluoride-issue

July 20, 2009, Southampton: Fluoride referendum would be ignored by health authority chiefs, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds! That's the message from health chiefs who say they will plough ahead with plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies regardless of whether the public get another chance to air their views. Bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority say it has already taken on board the opinions of county residents during a mass consultation - and another huge scale vote would not alter the outcome. The Daily Echo is backing growing calls for a referendum on fluoridation for Southampton and surrounding areas, because campaigners argue the people's voices were ignored. Today they branded the SHA "arrogant" for refusing to reconsider the decision in face of fierce opposition. They were backed by one MP who claimed health chiefs were "in denial" over public opinion. http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Fluoride-referendum-would-be-ignored-by-health-authority-chiefs

July 24, 2009, Southampton: Health regulators will not examine controversial decision, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo"HEALTH regulators will not scrutinise the controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies. The health service ombudsman says it won't examine concerns over South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) public consultation on the scheme because of a potential legal challenge going through the courts. But they left the door open to carrying out an investigation if the judicial review fails to answer campaigners' complaints. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Totton county councillor David Harrison jointly asked the regulator to examine the way the SHA carried out last year's consultation, before giving the scheme the go-ahead in February. They claimed the authority had been "hopelessly biased" in its advice to residents on the arguments surrounding the plans to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes. The politicians are also unhappy because they believe health bosses ignored public opinion by approving fluoridation for parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. The Daily Echo has backed campaigners' calls for a referendum on the scheme, giving residents the final say on the plans..."http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Health-regulators-will-not-examine-controversial-decision

Friday, August 28, 2009

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORKhttp://www.FluorideAlert.Org FAN Bulletin 1089: The public unprotected by the FDA, EPA and the CDCAugust 27, 2009,One would be hard put to choose among which federal agency violates scientific integrity more, the FDA, the EPA or the CDC. Each appears to put corporate interest above the public interest. I include the American Dental Association (ADA) in the description "corporate interest." The recent examples below fly in the face of President Obama's declaration that during his watch he would attempt to restore scientific integrity to federal regulatory agencies.

Example 1. The ADA and the mercury amalgam industry continues to pull strings at the FDA.

Please watch a three part interview between Dr. Mercola and Charlie Brown FDA's Mercury Ruling Defies ALL Scientific Reasoning.

Example 2. The CDC continues to aggressively promote fluoridation around the country.

See the latest travesty where an engineer, Kip Duchon- with no medical qualifications - is allowed to give the last word on the safety of fluoridation -in the attempt to step up fluoridation in the San Francisco Bay Area (see FAN bulletins #s 1087,1088). Remember the CDC has only one division involved with fluoridation and that is the Oral Health Division (OHD). OHD has virtually no medically trained personnel - most have only dental qualifications (see list of OHD personnel in 2008 ). Its function plain and simple is to PROMOTE fluoridation. No other division counter-balances their blatant conflict of interest or their lack of review of fluoride health studies. Thus, when the National Research Council published its landmark 507-page review Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA's Standards on March 22, 2006, it took the CDC just 6 days to fall in line with the ADA's self-serving, and nonsensical claim, that this review had no relevance to water fluoridation! Thus the CDC is to water fluoridation, what the FDA is to mercury amalgams: an adjunct to the ADA. The ADA in turn acts as the go-between for the various corporations which profit from both practices. The very least we want from the CDC is a separate division reporting annually on all the fluoride health studies. In other words, we need a constant update of the work started by the NRC and an update untainted by the conflict of interest of promoting fluoridation.

Example 3. The EPA Water Division continues to drag its feet on determining a new MCLG for fluoride.

The NRC (2006) panel found that neither the MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal) or the MCL (maximum contaminant level) fpr fluoride, which are both set at 4 ppm, are protective of health. They recommended that the EPA Water Division conduct a health risk assessment to determine a new MCLG. Dr. Robert Carton, a former risk assessment expert at the EPA, has argued that if they did this properly (i.e. followed the mandates of the Safe Drinking Water Act) and determined a level which was protective of everyone, including vulnerable subsets in the population, for known and reasonably anticipated health effects, the new MCLG would have to be set at ZERO (http://fluoridealert.org/scher/carton-2006.pdf). This would kill fluoridation overnight. It has now been THREE YEARS AND FIVE MONTHS and the EPA has still not come up with a new MCLG. Guess why it is taking them so long to do this?

Some of you, who have been receiving these bulletins for some time, will be familiar with the shocking way that the EPA Pesticide division (OPP = Office of Pesticide Programs) has thrown good science and scientific integrity to the wind in order to approve the use of sulfuryl fluoride (and the fluoride residues it leaves on food, called "tolerances") by Dow AgroSciences for use as a food fumigant (ProFume™) in warehouses and processing plants. FAN, with the help of the Environmental Working Group and Beyond Pesticides, has been intervening in this process since 2001.

We are going to spend a little time explaining this situation (as clearly as we can) because it represents such a BLATANT and demonstrable example of scientific dishionesty.

Each time FAN has intervened and shown that people (especially infants) in the US are already exceeding the EPA's reference dose for fluoride of 0.114 mg/kg bodyweight per day - and thus NO new source of fluoride exposure should be permitted - the EPA has come back by raising the reference dose for infants. The OPP has done this not just once but twice! The first time they raised it to 0.571 mg/kg/day - five times higher than the adult reference dose of 0.114 mg/kg/day. The second time they raised it to 1.14 mg/kg/day. Which is TEN TIMES the adult reference dose (0.114 mg/kg/day). Below I explain their atrocious reasoning for the latest manipulation.

There is no other example in EPA's regulation of pesticides or pesticide residues, where a reference dose has been set HIGHER for an infant than an adult. Not only is it blatantly absurd from a toxicological point of view (infants are considered to be more sensitive than adults to toxics, not less so, especially for sensitive tissues like the brain and the endocrine system), but it is also a clear violation of the Food Quality and Protection Act (FQPA). The FQPA requires the EPA, when determining safe levels of pesticide residues, to apply a MORE stringent safety margin for infants and children because of their well known extra sensitivity to toxic substances during early development. The FQPA requires a default value of an extra safety factor of 10 (only less than10 if there is sufficient data indicating little or no impacts on children's development). So if we combine the outrageous manipulation giving a reference dose for children ten times higher than for adults, with this FQPA requirement for an extra safety factor of 10, the combined lack of protection for children jumps to a factor as high as 100!

Another aspect of the the OPP's unscientific behavior in this matter is that all three health risk assessments the OPP performed for the fluoride residues left by this fumigant, were predicated on the the 1986 EPA safe drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 ppm. When the NRC has concluded that the 4 ppm standard was NOT protective of health in 2006, FAN immediately sought a halt of the use of sulfuryl fluoride since ALL three of OPP's health risk assessments were no longer valid. Like our previous interventions, this has also been ignored by the EPA.

NOW, before the EPA pesticide division (OPP) has responded to FAN's arguments (and it has now been over SEVEN YEARS since we first submitted formal Objections) the EPA is considering a request from Dow AgroSciences to EXPAND its use of sulfuryl fluoride still further. The company now wants to use sulfuryl fluoride in fumigating soil before crops are harvested. Needless to say this would increase still further the exposure of the American people (and the people in other countries in which Dow gets permission to use this highly dangerous pesticide) - especially infants - to more fluoride, at a time when it is abundantly clear that our kids are already being OVER-exposed to fluoride (e.g. Dental fluorosis now impacts 32% of American children, CDC, 2005).

So once again FAN has had to submit comments on this issue, while still waiting for a response to our Objections - on the same matter - from over FIVE years ago (the first Objections, submitted in 2002, were deemed "moot" because Dow withdrew its request). See FAN's submission of August 24, 2009.

Please write to your Congressperson and Senators asking them to investigate why it is that Washington appears to tolerate flagrant abuse of science and scientific integrity among the agencies we expect to be protecting our health. Please choose any of the examples we have cited above.

As angry as you may feel about this, please be polite. The science is on our side with these issues and the other side can only win if we come over as distraught crazies, yelling and screaming about conspiracy theories.

What we want is is very simple and basic. We want the scientists who work for these agencies to do the job that they are paid to do: to protect the public. They cannot protect the public with phoney science. If they want to manipulate science in the corporate interest then let them go and work for these corporations.

Please send us a copy of any letter you send to your US Representatives and any replies you receive. It might make your task simply to enclose a copy of this bulletin and then add one or two sentences expressing your shock and dismay at this situation. Please note: your first letter won't do the job. You will get the standard blow-off letter. It is your second letter which really counts where you pull their lame response apart, or ask for genuine and concrete follow-up.

Meanwhile, please add your name (if you haven't done so already) to the over 21,600 people who have signed an ONLINE message calling for Congressional hearings to investigate the role (or lack of it) of the three agencies (FDA, EPA and CDC) who should have some responsibility in protecting the public from the side effects of swallowing fluoride - but don't exercise that responsibility (either moral or legal). You can sign on here.

Thank you for all you do in these matters.

Paul Connett

Examination of the OPP's fiction on the reference dose for the fluoride ion for infants.

In its third health risk assessment (for sulfuryl fluoride tolerance levels for free fluoride ion) the EPA Pesticide Division (OPP) used the following reasoning. As with the previous two risk assessments, the OPP started with the derivation of the MCLG of 4 ppm. This has several key steps:

Step 1. The assumption that the only health end point of concern was crippling skeletal fluorosis. Step 2. The assumption that the LOAEL at which this occurs is 20 mg per day Step 3. The assumption that a safety factor of 2.5 would be protective for all adults from this end point.

At this point the normal and traditional way of determining what a safe dose would be for any other age range (and thereby range of bodyweight) is to divide this safe daily dose for adults by an adult's body weight (70 kg) to derive a safe REFERENCE DOSE of 0.114 mg/kg/day. This reference dose can then be used to back-calculate the safe daily dose for any other age range, by multiplying by the average weight for the age range in question.

For an infant the weight is taken as 7 kg, thus a safe dose would compute for them: 0.114 mg/kg/day x 7kg = 0.8 mg/day.

That's the normal regulatory and toxicological way of doing this - i.e. taking into account the difference in bodyweight for each age range.

In the OPP's third assessment, the OPP abandoned this traditional way -and toxicologically defendable way- and instead said that if 8 mg/day was safe for adults then it was safe for everyone regardless of age or bodyweight!

This is clearly a preposterous suggestion and makes as much sense as saying that, if 2000 mg of aspirin is safe for an adult, it would also be safe for 7 kg infant! By assuming that 8 mg per day was safe for everyone regardless of age or bodyweight, it allowed the OPP to produce an outrageously high reference dose for a 7 kg infant of 1.14 mg/kg/day: 8 mg/day divided by 7k bodyweight = 1.14 mg/kg bodyweight/day.

There is no rational scientific defense for such a manipulation. The only conclusion is that OPP was working backwards from what was needed to produce a risk assessment that would allow them to approve Dow AgroSciences agenda for using sulfuryl fluoride as an alternative to methyl bromide. In other words, OPP is violating scientific integrity and betraying the public's trust.

The OPP has failed to address the FAN, EWG and BP's challenge on these manipulations in their latest attempt to expand the use of Dow AgroScience's use of sulfuryl fluoride and simply continued as if we had not intervened at all. This clearly demonstrates a lack of good faith on their part.

Why on earth should the OPP go through the exercise of asking for public comment, not just once - but now FOUR TIMES - if they are merely going to ignore well-argued and well-documented interventions by those members of the public like ourselves who take the trouble to respond. Such behavior, in our view, simply underlines the OPP's desire to follow Dow AgroSciences agenda at all costs. The costs being in this case: the public's health, the public's trust, scientific integrity and the mandates of the Food Quality and Protection Act.

OPP's Use of the Food and Nutrition Board's UL

There is one other tame argument that the OPP has used to buttress its use of a 8 mg/day as being safe for everyone and that is their claim that the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1997 report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride used an upper tolerance level (UL) value of 10 mg per day for a wide age range.* However, this hurts their case rather than helping it.

The IOM did indeed come up with a UL of 10 mg/day but did so only for adults and children of 8 years and above. The value they used for children younger than eight years, especially for infants, was much lower than this.

If we consider just the UL for infants 0 through 6 months, and take the average bodyweight for this age range of 7 kg, this translates to a reference dose of 0.1 mg/kg/day (0.7 mg /day divided by 7 kg bodyweight) This is ELEVEN TIMES lower than the 1.14 mg/kg/day used by the OPP's third and latest health risk assessment.

*The IOM applied a totally unjustifiable safety factor of 1 (in their language an uncertainty factor of 1) to the revised LOAEL for skeletal fluorosis of 10 mg/day

How scientific Written by Gary KibseyPrince George Thursday, 27 August 2009 Let me get this straight. I monitor a city council meeting and listen to the pros and cons regarding fluoridation in the Prince George drinking water supply and I'm hearing from one dentist that there is indeed a risk of added fluoride and that statistics do not display solid evidence of cavity reduction with the use of fluoride anyway.In retaliation I hear one councillor comment that he drank well water for many years and experienced five cavities while several of his grandchildren drank Prince George fluoridated water and experienced no cavities. How scientific.This attitude is very similar to that displayed by our former mayor where he commented that the Prince George water was good enough for his family to drink and therefore was good enough for all of the residents of Prince George. Like I said, how scientific, and may I add, how irresponsible.Perhaps we should all wake up and read the labels. Read your toothpaste label and note the caution - contains fluoride, poison, harmful if swallowed, etc.I hear another councillor comment that we're dealing with minute quantities here and that the specialists in the Food and Drug Act department have ruled so many parts per million to be of no ill effect.Have you done any homework and noted that fluoride ingestion is accumulative, meaning that it adds up in our liver over a period of time?The bottom line is that, I would have thought that even the remotest possible risk of any fluoride ingestion/poisoning would far outweigh any possible benefits of it, at least to the degree of arbitrarily putting the stuff in the public's drinking water, but not so.If the city of Prince George was really concerned about the tooth decay of those who can't afford fluoride toothpaste, etc., then give it to them for free. Perhaps give them a tax break even, but don't risk poisoning the rest of us. Fluoride is an extra, an added chemical that has been supposedly added to discourage cavities for those who are unaware or irresponsible, or so the argument goes. Well thanks for your concern, Prince George, but no thanks. Water, unlike food or confectionaries, is not a choice but rather a true necessity and I'd like it to remain as pure and as safe as possible.Gary KibseyPrince George

Regulations needed, not just guidance4:45pm Thursday 27th August 2009HAMPSHIRE fluoridation is now on hold, awaiting the Judicial Review into the Southampton consultation process, which gives time to reassess some of the background questions. What is actually used? The two permitted fluorides for this purpose are not medically approved. The fluoridating SMAs refuse to say what is used, when asked through the Freedom of Information Office. The fluoridating water companies are doing the same, all using ‘information not available’ or ‘no comment’ response. We need to know manufacturers, product names, medical status, etc. How safely is it used? What protections are built into the system? A 2008 Severn Trent undetected area overdose tells us. The record report from the Drinking Water Inspectorate requires 14 recommendations to be addressed to prevent a recurrence. These are some of the things that went wrong: At Dimmingsdale Works, Severn Trent doses fluoride in fulfilment of a legal agreement with West Midlands Strategic Health Authority. In June and July, water leaving the works contained more fluoride that permitted (overdosing) which went undetected because work being carried out to install new equipment was inadequately supervised.

The technician involved had not received adequate training as specifically required by Sections five of the Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation 2005 and competence had not been assessed.

The equipment was not operating correctly and had not been fully tested prior to use. Guidance, in the form of a procedure or checklist, was absent. Alarms were not responded to and there was a general lack of awareness of the local water supply configuration, which meant the area receiving fluoridated water was not accurately defined or sampled appropriately.

The Inspectorate acted to facilitate the widest possible learning by the industry and health authorities from this incident. Companies practising fluoridation now and in the future must ensure that the contractual arrangements in place with the relevant health authority are fully consistent with and support the duty of the company to comply with the Code of Practice at all times.

Please note: Code of Practice . . . Guidance Notes . . . and as with most chemically dangerous areas in Britain - not Statutory Regulations. So no penalties?

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Scotland’s Water to be Fluoridated by Westminster Dictat David MasonPrison Planet.comWednesday, August 26, 2009FLASHBACK: Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories FactualOn the 24th of August 2009 a Statutory Instrument was used to amend the Water Act 2003, allowing the fluorination of Scottish water supplies (1,2,3).Fluoridated water has been shown to reduce IQ, cause dental fluorosis, and has been linked to cancer and a host of other medical conditions(4).Statutory Instruments are secondary legislation, that is laws which are passed by ministers and not debated in parliament. This is usually because the areas these laws cover are of an administrative nature. However, this law relates to the medication of water supplies. This issue is of huge importance and should have been debated in the Scottish Parliament, and not passed by Government dicat.The passing of this legislation coincides with a £255m initiative by Scottish Water to ‘improve’ it’s water supplies which will disrupt the water supplies of people within the region for the next 24 weeks.According to some sources, the Nazis and Soviets had plans to fluorinate the water supplies of their populations to keep them in a state of servitude and to accept the dictatorial government’s rule (5).This new law forces Scottish citizens to drink medicated water supplies. This is yet another example of the rogue government instituting fascist laws designed to keep the average citizen in a state of ignorant servitude and debt slavery.A meeting is to be hosted by Scottish Water on Thursday 3 September at 4pm in the DGOne Leisure Complex. ALL are invited to attend.Sources Cited1. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/corrections/uksics_20090359_en.pdf – This Statutory Instrument ammends the document 2, extending the use of flourinated water to Scotland.2. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090359_en_1 – This Statutory Instrument is amended by document 1 and when amended allows for section 58 of document 3.3. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030037_en_10#pt3-pb2-l1g58 – Water Act 2003. This Act of the Westminister Parliament demands the flourination of water at 1 mg per litre.

4. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/ – Website with links to academic studies on the effects of flouridated water.

5. http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=17791 -This letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from Mr. Charles Perkins, a chemist.

Wednesday, 26 August, 2009 - 22:47 Fluoride: A Pain in the Neck - Case Report A 52-year-old American (New York) man’s arthritic-like joint pain and immobility went away after he stopped brushing his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, according to a study in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (1). There’s no scientific dispute that large fluoride doses cause crippling skeletal fluorosis over time. (See. http://www.nalgonda.org/fluorosis/victims.htm) But, “less well-known causes of chronic fluoride toxicity include fluoride supplements, certain teas and wine and some toothpastes,” report researchers Kurland, et al. (1) Skeletal fluorosis often results in abnormal bone hardening and thickening (osteosclerosis) with painful and impaired neck and spine mobility, spine curvature, and/or painful lower extremities ultimately causing crippling and incapacitation, report the researchers. In this case, the only obvious fluoride exposure was toothpaste. The patient drank no fluoridated water, tea or wine; had no occupational fluoride exposure; did not chew tobacco, inhale snuff, cook with Teflon pots, use fluoridated mouthwash or get fluoride treatments at twice-yearly dentist visits. But he brushed before and after all meals (minimum 6 times daily) with fluoridated toothpaste. Fluoride was elevated in his serum, urine and iliac crest (bone), the researchers report.

Within 8 months of eliminating all obvious fluoride sources, the patient’s urinary and blood fluoride levels dropped and bone function markers showed clear cut improvement, the researchers report. “By approximately two years after diagnosis and apparent elimination of excess fluoride exposure, the patient had complete resolution of his neck immobility and no longer required analgesics,” the researchers write.

Kentucky Legislators and Medicaid Officials Convened at Kool Smiles' Bashford Office To Discuss Importance of Access to Oral Health CareLOUISVILLE, Ky., Aug. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Kool Smiles, a leading general dentistry provider for kids and parents, opened the doors to its newest location in the Bashford area of Louisville, KY.

'With the oral health crisis continuing to be one of the largest challenges our state's [Kentucky]children have to face, we're excited to have Kool Smiles open additional access to high quality oral healthcare specifically to the children and adults who need it most,' said Senator Julie Denton, Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Committee."..........................

95% of Kentucky residents live in fluoridated areas and fluoride supplements are given to children who don't:NYSCOF

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

724 indy news Topic: Fluoride and vaccines.

Wednesday, 26 August, 2009 - 19:42 A new study shows that "arthritis" alone costs the health system (i.e. taxpayer) $2 billion per year (1.2% GDP). And it will keep increasing unless something is done, according to the authors.

"But much 'arthritis' is actually misdiagnosed skeletal fluorosis, caused by over-exposure to fluoride - the toxin put in many of NZ's water supplies - according to the World Health Organisation. Doctors are not trained to diagnose this in NZ" advises Mark Atkin, Fluoride Action Network NZ's co-representative on the Fluoridation-free NZ Coalition.

The first sign of fluoride poisoning is dental fluorosis - an opacity in the teeth ranging from white to dark brown. It is caused by fluoride toxicity during childhood. It affects twice as many children in fluoridated communities according to two recent NZ studies - around 30%, instead of the 10% considered acceptable collateral damage when fluoridation was introduced.

The musculoskeletal study's authors point out that arthritis is considered a natural consequence of ageing, hence will increase as NZ's population ages. But skeletal fluorosis results from accumulated exposure to fluoride throughout life. Half of all fluoride swallowed accumulates in the bones.

"NZ has been fluoridated for 40 years now - about the time projected for developing first signs of skeletal fluorosis at the level of exposure in fluoridated communities (about 3 mg/day)" points out Mr Atkin, adding "while water fluoridation was introduced in the belief it would reduce tooth decay, we now know fluoride only works by applying it to the surface, such as with fluoride toothpaste. The latest large scale study in Australia (in 2004) showed no lasting benefit from fluoridation. Conversely, the health risks, come from swallowing it."

In 2006 the US National Research Council published its comprehensive report, identifying significant health risks from fluoride, especially to certain population groups. Risks began at the level of exposure in fluoridated communities.

"Class action law suits are currently being prepared in the USA and Australia, based on current scientific knowledge of fluoridation's harmful effects on health" advises Mr Atkin. "Meanwhile, like the band playing on the Titanic as it sank, the Ministry of Health keeps pushing its fluoridation agenda in the false belief it saves half a filling per person. Even if the Ministry were right, what would you choose - a filling, or years of suffering from arthritis?" he asks

Bristol NewsCampaign Launches to Fight Bristol Flouride PlansTuesday, August 25th 2009 15:53Worried Bristolians are meeting tonight to fight plans for the enforced fluoridation of the water supply to every home in the city.A feasibility study by NHS South West has already begun at the request of health trusts in the Avon area which, if deemed appropriate, can be pushed through thanks to new legislation that allows health authorities to compel water providers to fluoridate water after public consultation.The process, according to the British Fluoridation Society, reduces the numbers of children and adults suffering from tooth decay and maintains it would be an important part of local health authorities' oral health plans.But campaigner Glenn Vowles, spokesman for Bristolians Against Fluoridation (BAF), says it is not ethical, doesn't work, is not safe and not wanted.Speaking ahead of the first meeting of BAF on Tuesday night, Mr Vowles said: "The lack of choice in whether fluoride is added to our water is the primary focus. The substance most likely to be used is fluorosilicic acid which is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser manufacturing industry and is registered as a Class 2 poison under the Poisons Act 1972."There is no licence that has ever been obtained to use it as an additive to water, which is why you can see that 72% of people in Hampshire - who took part in a public consultation over plans to fluoridate water there - opposed the plans."We don't want the decision imposed upon us. You will be depriving people of their choice not to have a medication - which is what fluoridation is."At present, local supplier Bristol Water does not - and has no plans to - fluoridate the water supply to the city. But the Water Act 2003 has allowed Strategic Health Authorities to impose a decision to fluoridate water.The Drinking Water Inspectorate says the process is "very strictly regulated" and that the chemicals used must comply with strict European standards.But Mr Vowles claims the science behind the case for fluoridation is "poor" and that is a "despicable" waste of public money to consult on the issue."Most of Europe has seen falling rates of tooth decay over the last few decades without the use of fluoridation," he said."If you are going to deprive people of choice then you would at least want something that is essential and addressing a serious problem - and this is not the case."They will be spending £200,000 of public money on this consultation, which is despicable thing to do considering the 72% vote against in Hampshire."

Fluoride: it's a big scam! Date: 26 August 2009 Duck HillPecket WellHebden BridgeI REFER to the Courier Tuesday, August 18, "Councillors urged to say no to fluoride."It is correct that Calderdale Council has previously overwhelmingly expressed opposition to fluoridation on ethical and medical grounds but in 2007, Coun Bob Metcalfe told the Courier that fluoridation had the ability to prevent tooth decay and also had other benefits.He omitted to state what the other "benefits" are and who derives them. The only benefit I am aware of is to the phosphate fertiliser industry as, wherever fluoridation is practised, it converts the expensive problem of disposal of tank-washings into a lucrative sideline.

When disposing of it into drinking water supplies on the fallacious pretext that it is essential to the dental health of consumers, particularly infants and children, it would be more appropriate to refer to fluoridation as the most harmful medical scam ever perpetrated on a population.

When I use the term harmful, I am including Down's Syndrome. Premature underweight and still- born births, hypothyroidism, skeletal and muscular conditions which are usually referred to as osteoarthritis, osteoporosis kyphosis and scoliosis, which could also be referred to as "skeletal fluorosis", sudden deaths of infants, children and even young apparently healthy adults.

It also includes cancers of various organs, brain tumours in infants and Alzheimer's disease, particularly when associated with fluoride exposures.

Fluoride has the capacity to facilitate the uptake of toxic metals such as aluminium, cadmium and manganese.

The incidence of Alzheimer's disease in Calderdale is horrendous according to statistics published in the Courier earlier this year.

Nothing to Grin About: Bristol 6th on List of “Worst Teeth” CitiesReporter / Bristol Herald CourierPublished: August 25, 2009Known as home to Bristol Motor Speedway and the birthplace of country music, Bristol, Tenn., has now acquired a more dubious distinction – it’s sixth on the list of the “The 14 Worst-Teeth Cities.”The list was published Aug. 18 in a story about beauty tips and products posted on TotalBeauty.com. The study’s authors cited the region’s high number of smokers and lack of access to dental care as the top two reasons why the city made the list......

Carbon cost of MPs' Hildon mineral waterTHE DECISION to continue serving Hampshire mineral water at Westminster has created a 12-tonne carbon footprint, it has been revealed.A report commissioned following criticism over the use of bottled water to refresh MPs has revealed the environmental impact of deliveries from the county to the corridors of power.As reported by the Daily Echo last year, the use of Hildon water, bottled in Broughton, was condemned by green campaigners who said a more environmentally -friendly alternative should be found.The report, from environmental consultancy Best Foot Forward, was commissioned after protests from MPs on all sides at the Commons administration committee's decision to rule out a change to tap water.A House of Commons spokeswoman said there were "too many practical difficulties" in setting up and maintaining water coolers in MPs' offices and committee rooms.Providing and refilling jugs of fresh tap water in committee rooms would cost an estimated £295,000 a year she added.But, she said: "We are mindful of the fact that we want to reduce our carbon emissions and are therefore looking at other measures to do that." Hildon clocked up more than 70,000 miles delivering its water the 77 miles to the Palace of Westminster between 2003 and 2008.

Sandon said that parents can help lower that sugar intake by getting soda out of the house, looking at how much sugar is in their kids' cereal and substituting snacks like cookies with popcorn..............................

Fluoride to remain in city's water Written by Citizen staff Monday, 24 August 2009 A plea to end fluoridation of the city’s water supply received short shrift from city council on Monday night.Council took no action to change the practice after hearing from advocates on both sides of the debate, beginning with Oregon-based dentist Dr. Bill Osmuson, who claimed fluoridation is not effective in preventing tooth decay.He also noted that toothpaste tubes advise children under six should use only a pea-size amount and added it’s the same amount as found in a one-sixth litre glass of Prince George water.Osmuson further asserted too much fluoride is linked to bone cancer, decreased brain activity, bone fractures, diabetes, obesity, kidney damage, gastrointestinal disorders, allergies, and reproductive problems.And he said fluoride promotes dental fluorosis.But in a separate presentation, retired dentist Arnold Steinbart said that fluoridation has helped promote healthier teeth since it was introduced in Prince George in 1955. A 1968 survey showed 52-per-cent fewer cavities in this city’s children compared to those in Quesnel where there was not fluoridation.He also noted that the amount of fluoride in the city’s water is 0.7 parts per million, less than half the level recommended by the federal government. “Why is that?” he asked. “Because we know they’re going to get fluoride in other sources.Some fluoride will be swallowed while brush, “but we have to teach the children how to brush their teeth and we have to brush the younger children’s teeth.”

Monday, August 24, 2009

August 24, 2009 News from the United States this summer has been filled with debates over health care reform. They have been characterized by misinformation and fear. They have also reminded me that good public decisions on health must be made using accurate and complete information.

In November 2010, citizens in the city of Waterloo will be asked to vote on whether we wish to continue to receive fluoride in our municipal drinking water, in response to concerns from a number of very vocal residents. As a resident who has received the benefits of fluoridated water in Waterloo for my entire life, I want each of our citizens to make an informed decision on water fluoridation.

First, the U.S. Centres for Disease Control has identified water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20 century. Studies have estimated that fluoridated water can be expected to reduce the rates of dental caries, also known as cavities, by 30 to 50 per cent in children and approximately 27 per cent in adults. Caries can cause pain and structural problems, and, if left untreated, can lead to infection, loss of function, and the need for tooth extraction. While we often see cavities as a treatable problem, they can have serious health effects, particularly for those who cannot afford regular dental visits or treatment.

Second, adding fluoride is a tremendously cost-effective public health intervention, at approximately 60 cents per person per year. This means that providing me with fluoridated water to this point in my life has cost our government less than $15. Treatment of a cavity is enormously more expensive.

So fluoridated water is effective and inexpensive for its benefits, but is it safe? As of 2007, 70 per cent of Ontario’s population received fluoridated drinking water. In the right small amounts, as we have in Waterloo, there is no reason to believe that water fluoridation is unhealthy. Fluoridation is supported by the Canadian Dental Association, the Ontario Dental Association, the American Dental Association and the World Health Organization, among others.

Some have expressed concern about dental fluorosis, which most often is mild and causes white flecks to appear on teeth as a result of too much fluoride up to the age of six. Children do not get too much fluoride from appropriately fluoridated drinking water. The most common cause of excess fluoride in children is swallowing toothpaste.

We like to think that our society is equitable, and that how healthy we are isn’t related to how much money we have. Unfortunately, these difficult times have reminded us that far too many people in our community do not get their prescriptions, do not eat healthy food, and do not get preventive dental care, all because they cannot afford them.

Water fluoridation is an important step in levelling the playing field. Research from England indicates that those who are poor receive the most benefit from water fluoridation. Removing fluoride from our drinking water would be most damaging for those in our community who have the least.

Unjustly, when decisions are made based on fear and misinformation, the results often most injure those who are most vulnerable. This may well be the ultimate result of the U.S. health care reform debate. Do not let it become the result of our 2010 referendum. I encourage everyone to use the next year to become informed about this issue, using reliable and relevant information.

And for those who do not receive fluoride in your municipal drinking water, this may be a good time to figure out if you think that should change.

I hope the good citizens will hear from those opposed to fluoridation and not just this propaganda.

By Dr. Michael W. FoxAugust 23, 2009 DEAR DR. FOX: I read in today's paper about a dog with very sore gums. I am one of those rare people who is highly allergic to fluoride in water. I had very sore gums. Even with teeth cleaning every three months, it didn't help. Apart from sore gums, I also had severe stomach cramps and explosive diarrhea for several years before it could be figured out what caused all of this.

Could some animals be allergic to fluoride in water, bringing on unexpected illness? Some bottled water also has fluoride. The only bottled water I've been able to drink without getting sick is Mountain Ice and reverse-osmosis water. It's worth checking out.

B.B.,

Horace, N.D.

DEAR B.B.: Your letter is important to all. You are particularly sensitive to fluoride, so one wonders what fluoride does to other people and animals who do not develop acute symptoms but may suffer the consequences of chronic exposure and toxicity.Many countries have prohibited the addition of fluoride to treated municipal water. Chlorination — an endocrine disrupter — is hazardous enough.Chronic fluoride exposure has been linked with many health problems from thyroid disease to bone cancer, especially in boys. Pets may be similarly affected. Fluoride accumulates in the bones and teeth. For details, especially about high fluoride levels in some pet foods, visit www.twobitdog.com/DrFox.Please give your animal companions quality spring water or purified water not distilled). All municipal water authorities should cease and desist from adding fluoride a byproduct of the agrichemical-fertilizer industry) to public water sources. Avoid pet foods that list "bone meal," "meat meal" and "chicken byproduct meal" as ingredients. They may contain a lot of round bone included during the "deboning" process.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Once in check, tooth decay in children surgesDentists link trend to sugary foods, lack of fluorideBy Christina E. Sanchez • THE TENNESSEAN • August 22, 2009 Health professionals and experts in pediatric dentistry are seeing an increase in the number of children with tooth decay and cavities.The culprits are plentiful, and the decay often preventable, but the lack of education for parents is causing more children to end up in the dentists' chairs with "owies."Dentists who focus on dental care for children said the use of fluoride, particularly added into tap water, helped prevent decay in children for several decades. But an explosion of people buying and drinking bottled waters and sodas, plus more sugar being added to food, has allowed decay to make a strong return.

"I see a lot more decay than in the '80s," said Dr. David Snodgrass, a pediatric dentist at Snodgrass and King, which has four offices. "We see at least one or two kids every day in each of our offices with rampant decay."

More than half of children between 5 and 9 years of age have had at least one cavity or filling, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most communities have added fluoride to their tap water, though it also occurs naturally in water sources. The recommended amount of fluoride is 1 part per million parts of water, and cities test to see how much is in their system.

According to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's Web site, about 93 percent of all communities in the state add fluoride to water.

Fluoride folly?WOMEN'S WORLDBy DR NOR ASHIKIN MOKHTARThe experts say that fluoride helps to prevent tooth decay when used in small amounts on a routine basis. But some people are voicing concerns that it may do more harm than good.WARNINGS about fluoride have been going around for a while now. You may have even received some forwarded emails about this, and wondered what it’s all about.If you think “fluoride” sounds familiar, it’s because you see the word every time you brush your teeth – it’s right there on your tube of toothpaste.Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in water and certain types of foods. In some places, it is also added to water and dental products like toothpaste and mouth rinses to protect against tooth decay.So is fluoride really beneficial or is it a toxic additive? Here are both sides of the story:

The good

According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, fluoride helps to prevent tooth decay when used in small amounts on a routine basis. It encourages “remineralisation,” a strengthening of weak areas on the teeth. These spots are the beginning of cavity formation.On the Academy’s website, it is stated that fluoride has been documented to be safe and highly effective. Research indicates water fluoridation, the most cost effective method, has decreased the decay rate by over 50%.Since 1972, the Malaysian government has used the fluoridation of public water supplies as a primary caries prevention programme. According to the Ministry of Health, community water fluoridation is the safest and most cost-effective method of reducing dental decay, and about 60% of the Malaysian population benefit from this public health measure.However, the Academy acknowledges the danger of too much fluoride, particularly for children. Only small amounts of fluoride are necessary for dental protection, but it can be easy to exceed those safe levels if people consume fluoridated water supply, as well as use fluoridated dental products.

The bad

Anti-fluoride activists claim that there is still no scientific evidence that fluoride stops tooth decay. There is also no evidence to show the effects of long-term fluoridation on the body, especially the effects of fluoride accumulation over many years.Excessive fluoride is believed to cause chronic skeletal fluorosis, a condition that can cause bones to become weak and brittle. It is often claimed that it can cause dental fluorosis in children, which is a discoloration of teeth caused by ingestion of excess fluoride during childhood.Anti-fluoride campaigners have also pointed to isolated studies and anecdotal evidence indicating that exposure to fluoride may be linked to thyroid problems, bone cancers, and hip fractures. Other conditions that have also been linked to excessive fluoride include kidney problems, arthritis, genetic damage and birth defects, and premature ageing.Without conclusive evidence to back up these claims, it is difficult to pinpoint fluoride as the cause of this wide range of conditions.

The safe course

While the pro- and anti-fluoride campaigners fight it out, parents are wondering what’s the right amount of fluoride for their children or for pregnant mothers.

The best thing to do is to keep fluoride levels as minimal as possible, especially if you are pregnant. Children, in particular, should not swallow fluoridated toothpaste. Parents should supervise the use of toothpaste carefully so that only a pea-sized amount is used.

Some children’s toothpaste come in flavours to encourage brushing, but be aware that this could also encourage them to eat it! So look for “low-dose” toothpaste or non-fluoridated toothpaste when shopping, and don’t leave toothpaste around where very young children can reach them.

If you or your child uses a fluoridated toothpaste, steer clear of other products, such as mouthwashes, that contain fluoride.

Get advice from your dentist or doctor about other methods of oral hygiene to help prevent dental caries.

Health bosses consider adding fluoride to Bristol's waterSaturday, August 22nd 2009 13:52Health bosses in Bristol are considering putting fluoride in the city's drinking water.They say that, to date a firm decision about whether to put fluoride in our water has not been made.But they have commissioned a report into it.Scientific research shows that adding fluoride to the water supply prevents tooth decay, but some say that with other sources of the chemical, including toothpaste, it can be easy to get too much.The process is still at the early stages, but if approved, it would affect people living in the whole of the former Avon area.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

LETTER: Fluoride fight continuesAryana Page, Thunder BayTo the editor:Scientists, toxicologists and dentists speaking out against water fluoridation and it’s toxic effects helped city council become well informed on the fluoride issue. Councillors proved to be well prepared on both sides of the issue and continually asked tough questions of the pro-fluroiders that flew into the city and bombarded the city council meeting on July 20.

For interest Google the video of Dr. William Marcus of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who was fired for whistleblowing on water fluoridation and it’s relation to osteosarcoma. Also visit www.fluoridealert.org for more credible information.

The Thunder Bay District Health Unit’s agenda will no doubt be to garner enough support through a petition to initiate a plebiscite. The disturbing factor is that references to calcium fluoride and natural element continue to be used in their promotional material when describing municipal water fluoridation. Those paying attention would have heard from the council meeting the industrial compound name fluorosilicic acid and that other uses besides water fluoridation include cement hardener and wood preserver.

The health unit has infiltrated organizations such as the elementary school system, both Catholic and public. Packages were delivered to the schools via courier containing fluoride brochures (filled with misleading and one-sided information) with instructions to send home with the oldest child in the family. Before any action could be taken by school officials, most of the infamous material was handed out. Very sneaky.

The challenge for our community since this issue is far from over is to separate the fact from fluoride fiction. On your next dental visit, before you sign any petition, ask about the compound information. Ask your hygienist if they are aware of the source of fluorosilicic acid. If the individual doesn’t tell you that it comes from the scrubber system located in smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer/mining industry then you are talking to someone ill-informed, selling you on fluoride.

Pro fluoriders call it calcium fluoride; non-fluoriders call a spade a spade, fluorosilicic acid to be exact. Charlie Bishop from the Lakehead Public Board can verify the arrival of the brochures from the TBDHU.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Call to re-affirm opposition to fluoridationDate: 20 August 2009 By Staff CopyCALDERDALE Council is to be asked to reconfirm its commitment to opposing fluoridation of water in Calderdale and undertake public consultation on the recent announcement by NHS Calderdale.As reported on Page Ten of this week's edition, the Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is undertaking a study into the possibility of putting fluoride into water supplies, as requested by NHS Bradford and Airedale and NHS Kirklees.ADVERTISEMENT

This would result in water supplies in areas of Calderdale being affected.Coun Craig Whittaker, (Con, Rastrick) succeeded in securing cross Party support in 2003, opposing fluoridation, and will put forward a further motion to Council on October 1.

He said: "It is totally unacceptable that the Strategic Health Authority is able to force people to have fluoride in their water; it defies the most basic of human rights, that people have control over their own bodies.

"The rationale given for adding fluoride is to improve the dental health of children, but such attempts always prove controversial. Despite the fact that 72 per cent of those who responded to consultation were against fluoridation, Southampton Council recently voted to support South Central SHA, which has resulted in significant public backlash."Coun Whittaker said that in 2003 the decision on fluoridation moved from Water Companies to SHA, who now have the final say."This decision was made because Water Companies feared being sued, so not only have the Government taken the decision away from them, they have indemnified them against legal liabilities; why would they do this if they are so convinced it is safe?"Research clearly shows that continued exposure to fluoride can have significant health implications; the process that the Government has set down for making this decision goes against the fundamental principle of freedom of choice."People can choose to buy fluoride toothpaste, which is no more expensive, or fluoride tablets. Mass medication is not, and never will be the answer."NHS Calderdale is undertaking a study of the advantages and disadvantages of water fluoridation in Calderdale, which is due to be completed in Spring 2010. It will then consult the public on its findings.In the meantime, Calderdale Council will be asked to make a petition available for residents to ensure they can make their views known, said Coun Whittaker.

Moss leads anti-fluoride backlash FIGHTING BACK: Ralph Moss, of Ballina, believes that water fluoridation is a health hazard.Jay CronanRALPH MOSS wants to form a citizens and ratepayers' association to stop Ballina's water supply being fluoridated.A staunch anti-fluoridation protester, Mr Moss says Ballina Shire Council's decision to add fluoride to the water is in breach of Section 5 of the Commonwealth Act and Section 109 of the Australian Constitution.The Ballina resident claims council broke the law by failing to properly consult with the community.Ballina mayor Phillip Silver rejected Mr Moss's claim, saying the council had engaged the community sufficiently and it was now up to NSW Health to make the final decision.Mr Moss said fluoride was a poison. “My primary problem with Ballina council introducing fluoride into the water supply is the health hazard it will pose to the community,” he said.

“When fluoride gets into the bloodstream it enters the pineal gland and the pituitary gland, which control the glandular systems. It can be the start of cancer.“I personally suffer with hyperthyroidism, so I have flat-red blood formation, which means if I ingest fluoride I suffer from headaches.”Cr Silver said NSW Health knew the risks involved with water fluoridation and would come to the right decision.“Council has resolved to advise the Department of Health of our desire for fluoridation of Ballina's water supply,” he said.“There are currently discussions going on between Rous Water and the Department of Health. The shires of Richmond Valley, Lismore City and Ballina Shire have all indicated their desire for fluoridation to the department and are discussing how and when it will occur.”Cr Silver said that children's dental health would benefit greatly from the decision.Mr Moss is calling for residents to attend a meeting at the Ballina RSL Club on Monday, from 6pm. The meeting will discuss the formation of a citizens and ratepayers' association with the initial goal of blocking fluoridation.

By: Dr. Michael Fox, INFORUM .................Dear L.A.: This kind of alopecia can be difficult to rectify once the hair follicles cease to function normally. Your dog’s condition could be aggravated by lack of exposure to sunlight outdoors, which can lead to seasonal alopecia in some dogs. You could set up a full-spectrum grow light or Vita-Lite by which the dog sleeps during the winter months may help.

Your pet’s diet (dry food) is lacking in essential fatty acids, so I would give your dog a teaspoon of cod-liver oil, flax or coconut oil daily with food and the same amount of brewer’s yeast. A good-quality multimineral and multivitamin supplement like Pfizer’s Pet Tabs or other beneficial supplements listed at my Web site (www.twobitdog.com/DrFox) may also help.

I would take her off any “stress” medication and have her checked again for Cushing’s disease. I would advise against giving her any more vaccinations. They may be responsible for some forms of thyroid disease in dogs; high fluoride levels in certain pet foods and fluoridated drinking water also playing a role. For details, visit my Web site.

Commentary: Trusting the authoritiesPublished on Friday, August 21, By Gordon BarlowThis sure is the Age of Information, isn’t it?Too much information, perhaps. Remember the Good Old Days when we believed everything we read in the newspapers and heard on the radio and TV?There wasn’t much call for contrary opinions, then. We trusted the media not to lie to us, and we trusted the authorities not to lie to the media.Not any more. Today the international mainstream media organs (“the MSM”) broadcast the official versions of events, and alternative versions are offered by independent blogs and online forums. (One of my favourite news websites calls itself “What Really Happened”.) The ongoing debate over mass medication is a case in point. At least in the USA and the UK, the MSM almost always reports the political and medical establishments’ assurances that mass medication is safe. If it weren’t safe it wouldn’t be authorized: it’s as simple as that.

It is usually left to the independent websites to look behind the curtains. Are the official assurances believable, or are the spokesmen on the payroll of the pharmaceuticals companies (“Big Pharma”)? Follow the money, they say.

After all, Big Pharma makes billions of dollars from every drug approved by government inspectors; the companies’ senior managers and chemists pocket some of those billions in bonuses; banks pay billions in bonuses when the companies pay off their loans; lobbyists skim off billions more in fees, some of which they pass on to politicians in bribes called “election donations”.

Fluoride in the public water supplies is safe, depleted uranium is safe, genetically modified foods are safe, recycled sewage is safe, vaccinations for swine flu are safe. The MSM says “yes, that’s correct”, the independents say “well, not so fast”.

Swine flu Increasingly, the general public doesn’t trust the MSM of Britain and America, or the officials from whom they get their news. Trust has been eroded by too many lies, over the years. As a general statement: politicians however democratically elected, and bureaucrats however fairly appointed, long ago sold out to Big Pharma and Big Agriculture and Big Military and Big Banks. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me a hundred times, forget it.

The brutal Western crusade against Moslems – invasions, occupations, tortures, indiscriminate slaughters, ethnic cleansing, mass abductions, concentration camps… The theft of trillions of dollars of private and public moneys… The economic collapse and the endless bailouts from the Public Purse… The faked suicides of whistle-blowers and investigators...

Official lies and pretence are part of the daily fare, all over the world. Oh well, maybe they always were.

The cover-ups are effective, God knows. Forty-six years after the event, we still don’t know who killed Kennedy. The CIA say they didn’t – but they say they don’t torture prisoners, too. How can we believe a word they say?

Even Al Jazeera and Pravda are more believable now than the CIA – and Britain’s MI6.

So. What are we to believe about the swine flu? Is it really a naturally occurring pandemic?

Some websites allege that the virus was created in a US or British laboratory as a bio-warfare weapon. Billions of dollars stand to be made from the surge in vaccine-use during the next flu season. Champagne all round, eh?

One British newspaper reports that an advisor to the UK Government is actually an executive of a company that makes an anti-flu drug. He was instrumental in having the swine flu designated as a pandemic. Fancy that.

Public Health Where does all this leave us consumers?At least one EU (European Union) nation is openly expressing doubts as to the effectiveness of the vaccines and the post-infection inoculations. They are refusing to be hustled into mass medication on the say-so of Big Pharma. How should consumers react to reports that the vaccines haven’t yet been tested for small babies?How much trust should we put in assurances that the medication is safe for everybody?How fatal is the swine flu anyway, and who says? Could the cure be worse than the disease? Turning to Cayman, now: I’d like to hear our local medical association’s answers to all the questions.What have its members done to learn about the disease’s lethality and the vaccines’ safety, for people of different ages?And especially: what truth is there in reports of the very nasty side-effects of Tamiflu? What research have our Caymanian politicians done on the topic?We can’t realistically expect any original research to be done on-Island, but we do expect our paid protectors to protect us to the best of their abilities. Public Health kept us in the dark about HIV in the early days; can we rely on them to tell us the whole truth about the swine flu in these early days? Will they be compelling us all to get the jabs, or recommending them, or recommending against, or what? It’s a bit disappointing that we’ve heard so little to date from our local experts. Shouldn’t they be trying to build a local consensus? I have two small grandchildren, whose parents are leaning towards skipping the vaccines and Tamiflu. It could be a life-or-death decision. If they do skip the medication, will they be courting death or dodging it?What should I tell them?

A harmful precedentOLGA Senior's address in your paper to we who oppose fluoride being added to our water supply enquired 'Do we really think these organisations would support a measure if they felt the evidence showed it would cause harm?'.I am sure that the authority that released Thalidomide felt the same and look at the misery this decision caused.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

'Mass medication is not the answer': Councillors urged to say no to fluorideDate: 19 August 2009 By Michael PeelCOUNCILLORS will be asked to reaffirm their position on putting fluoride in drinking water.Six years ago they told the Government that the chemical was harmful to humans, animals and the environment.They overwhelmingly agreed that its supposed benefits were based on unsound medical science and adding it to drinking water defied all comADVERTISEMENTmon medical ethics.Craig Whittaker, who put the case to Calderdale Council in July 2003, will do so again at the council meeting in October."It is totally unacceptable that the health authority is able to force people to have fluoride in their water. It defies the most basic of human rights, that people have control over their own bodies," he said.

The controversial issue is back on the agenda following warnings, reported by the Courier, that parts of Calderdale could get fluoride in their water if neighbouring areas go ahead with the mass medication.Health bosses in Kirklees and Bradford want to use the chemical to improve dental health.

Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health Authority is undertaking a study into the possibility of putting fluoride into water supplies at the request of NHS Bradford and Airedale and NHS Kirklees.

"The rationale is to improve the dental health of children but such attempts always prove controversial," said Coun Whittaker (Con, Rastrick).

"Research clearly shows that continued exposure to fluoride can have significant health implications; the process that the Government has set down for making this decision goes against the fundamental principle of freedom of choice. "People can choose to buy a fluoride toothpaste or fluoride tablets – mass medication is not and never will be the answer."

The health authority's study is due to be completed in spring 2010. It will then consult the public on its findings.

...........However, Barry Cockcroft, the Chief Dental Officer, described the decline in complex treatments as “evidence that the new system is freeing up time that dentists can use to deliver more preventative care”. “It is also a reflection of changing oral health, which has improved dramatically over the past 30 years and oral health for children in England is now among the best in Europe.” He added that dentists “would be deeply shocked by the suggestion that patients may be deliberately under-treated to maximise profit”...........

Feds put the bite on dental health in TasmaniaBY DANIELLE BLEWETT20/08/2009 4:48:00 PMBRING out your teeth!Tasmanians have some of the worst teeth in Australia - with a tooth being pulled once every three minutes.Yesterday, the Federal Government urged Tasmanian parents to get their kids to the dentist quick smart.This year Medicare Australia sent out 38,100 vouchers to Tasmanians, each valued at $153.45 for teenagers to get a preventative dental health check-up.Families will get a voucher each calendar year and this year's vouchers are valid until December 31.To be eligible, a teenager must be entitled to receive Medicare benefits and be aged 12 to 17 years.The voucher covers one annual preventative check consisting of an oral examination, a scale and clean, fluoride treatment, oral hygiene instruction, dietary advice and or fissure seal."Teenagers need to present their voucher when they have this check," Medicare Australia's Mark Jackson said. According to the Australian Health and Medical Research Council:•11.2 per cent of Tasmanians aged 25 to 44 wear dentures, almost double the national average.•A tooth is extracted every three minutes in public dental services around Australia.•Tasmania has the highest percentage of people wearing a denture in the nation.•The rate of 23.1 per cent is 4.6 per cent higher than national average of 18.5 per cent.•In all the age categories from 25 to 65-plus, Tasmania is significantly above the national average. •41 per cent of Tasmanians in the 45 to 64-year-old category have dentures, which is 12 per cent above the national average.

Fluoridation has a long and proud track record in Tasmania, with Beaconsfield in 1953 becoming the first fluoridated public drinking water supply in Australia!

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

fluoride p 12 : 12

PETER MOORE: Politically correct rubbish August 19th, 2009 ..................This is what happens when we start taking too much notice of those who choose to complain about anything and everything. This is when the silent majority need to stand up and do a Peter Finch and declare to the entire world: ``We're as mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.'' This minor issue is yet another example of political correctness gone mad and Cotton On, by acquiescing to the demands of these sour pussies _ who from where I stand quite simply need to get a life _ will only encourage them to interfere more and more in our lives. Where are these people when the Looney Left, militant Gay right or the reality challenged anti-fluoride people are parading their kids around with inappropriate messages on T-shirts and placards? The answer of course is nowhere even if the messages are outrageous and offensive because for some reason individuals seem exempt from ire of the politically correct and, two, they are extremely selective in what they find offensive. Personally I find a seven-year-old child at an anti-fluoride rally carrying a placard saying ``I don't want to die from industrial waste poisoning'' offensive; as if the child had any idea what his parents are saying is right or not and of course there are many other such examples I could quote. I really think it's about time we all pulled our heads in and concentrated on core values that really matter and kept the trivia and trivialising to something that consulting adults do behind closed doors instead of being played out in the media and affecting us all. If you don't like something don't do it, don't buy it, don't support it but for God's sake don't stop the rest of us taking advantage of something we may enjoy!

We deserve open fluoride informationIN Southampton, we are told that we have many current problems, particularly among the young. Teenage pregnancies, underage alcohol and drug abuse, hyperactivity, juvenile obesity and diabetes. It would be a ridiculous notion, would it not, to add contraception, tranquillisers, slimming aids and insulin to our drinking water to counteract these problems? These issues obviously need to be dealt with according to individual need, the same as for other health problems. Why should tooth decay be any different? The Primary Care Trust claims that all its previous attempts to control this have been ineffective - we have a right to know why.The Strategic Health Authority have apparently not acted illegally. They have acted according to a legal document drawn up by the Government which gives them absolute power, regardless of the results of a consultation and peoples' wishes. The morals and ethics of this, however, are highly questionable.Reports on the subject, both for and against, highlight the fact that not enough high quality data is available to determine the effects of fluoride. One has to ask, why not? If this data does not exist, after 50 years of fluoridation, then how can statements be made defending the use of fluoride in other parts of the country and locally? Sweeping statements have been made to claim that if fluoride caused health problems, they would have been obvious by now. However, data can only be researched if it is actively sought. Fluoride may well have a bearing on many health problems, but it would remain hidden if not specifically targeted. Presumably we in Southampton are a golden opportunity for high quality data to be gathered. I am not prepared to be a guinea pig, nor wish others to be, for no good reason. Tooth decay affects a minority of children and can be effectively dealt with in other ways. It is not a mass epidemic, and does not require mass medication.Fluoride alters the structure of developing tooth enamel, and even the pro-fluoride devotees acknowledge that fluoride can cause fluorosis (mottling, staining and pitting of the teeth). If it has this effect on the teeth, what is it doing to the rest of the body? Fluorosis cannot be removed - it has to be concealed by expensive veneers, or the unfortunate child has to live with the effects into adulthood. Not exactly a step forward, particularly for children in socially disadvantaged areas, where we are told tooth decay is prevalent. Our bodies are made up from mostly water and natural chemicals. Our foods and general environment still contain too many chemicals, a cocktail of which can cause many health problems. We do not need another one.I can understand why many people are seeking a referendum, but we still need to bear in mind that any vote taken is only as effective as the information available. It is not unheard of for people to vote positively for something they do not really agree with when a certain approach is used, and things are not made entirely clear. We have a right to be given honest and unbiased information , in a clear and open way. There are too many questions and not enough answers

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

fluoride p 11 : 12

Fed up to back teeth with ‘crisis’JOHN CONROY18/08/2009 12:00:00 AMEXPERTS from the dental world met in Corowa last night to discuss what they say is a crisis in the shire’s oral health.Corowa has twice the level of dental decay in children as Albury, with Howlong slightly more than Corowa, according to data from the Greater Southern Area Health Service.In the public forum at the CorowaRSL club, the crowd heard how fluoride was the first step in addressing the shire’s issues, which was also facing a shortage of dentists.Professor Anthony Blinkhorn, the keynote speaker, and a chair of population oral health at the University of Sydney, said adding fluoride to the water supply would reduce the need for dentists in the area.“Increasing training schools so we can have more dentists is actually a very old-fashioned way to address the problem,” he said.“You shouldn’t have to fill teeth when you can prevent it in the first place.“I have been involved in fluoride research for 30 years and I can’t find anything wrong with it.“It strengthens dental enamel on a daily basis.“It’s a very sensible and practical solution.”Professor Blinkhorn said removing fluoride from a water supply in Scotland had shown the cost of dental care rises.“It rises 105 per cent for children and 85 per cent for adults,” he said.He said 95 per cent of people in NSW drank water with fluoride added and did not protest.Yarrawonga dentist John Charles agreed, saying dissent among the profession was almost non-existent.“Maybe one or two people but it’s a very emotive situation,” he said.“We have emotions on one side and science on the other ... there is nothing to link it with disease.”The meeting was attended by Corowa councillors and council staff, as well as interested members of the public including Wodonga-based anti-fluoride campaigner Marilyn Edgar.Mrs Edgar was invited by Corowa friend, Barry Stiff, to represent him as he couldn’t attend.“It is a grave concern considering most of Europe has rejected fluoride where they have ruled it is actually a medication,” Mrs Edgar said.“It’s a shame the whole community is not consulted on this, just the interest groups.”

Common sense needed in the fluoride debateTHIS country is in bad need of some common sense.The SNA, which wants to add a chemical waste, fluoride, to .our water supply should start listening to people, and people don't want it. The air that we breathe is not good because of too many cars and planes going around. Now they want to mess with our water supply which is also our lifeline -can nothing be left untouched?It is not swine flu that will kill you it is some of the swines at the top.NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Monday, August 17, 2009

fluoride p 10 : 12

Hypothyroidism Reaches Epidemic Proportions, Causing Fatigue and Weight Gain Monday, August 17, 2009 by: Barbara L. Minton, citizen journalist NaturalNews) Is the average temperature of the human body still 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit? This often quoted average was determined in the nineteenth century. A more recent study has reported an average temperature of 98.2, and experts believe the decrease in body heat is the result of an epidemic of mild or moderate hypothyroidism. Some believe we are evolving into a population with the propensity for low thyroid function because antibiotics have allowed people who would have died from pneumonia and other diseases associated with hypothyroidism to remain alive and reproduce. Others see rising hypothyroidism rates as the result of diet and environmental factors. Whatever the answer is, one thing is sure. More people than ever are suffering from the myriad of symptoms associated with low thyroid levels, especially women.

Thyroid is the most important hormone in the body. Because it stimulates the production of cellular energy, production of all other hormones will be negatively impacted when thyroid hormone levels are less than optimal. Every aspect of health is affected by low thyroid function............

Ask Dr. H: A 'natural' osteoporosis treatment, but effective?By Mitchell Hecht Medical ColumnistQuestion: My gynecologist just started me on Fosteum for osteoporosis. I can't tolerate Fosamax and Actonel, so she prescribed this "natural" treatment. How well does it work compared to those others? Answer: Fosteum is completely different from "biphosphonates" like Fosamax, Actonel and Boniva. Fosteum, a supplement available only by prescription, contains genistein (a soy-based estrogen), 200 units of Vitamin D, and 20 milligrams of zinc. It is characterized as a "medicinal food" rather than a drug. It costs around $60 per month, is taken twice a day, and is not generally covered by most managed care plans.

Fosteum's manufacturer, Primus Pharmaceuticals, does cite improvement of bone mineral density in research conducted on rats, as well as a recent study of genistein improving the bone mineral density of post-menopausal women published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

But the unanswered question is whether that translates to a reduced risk of bone fracture. For example, fluoride supplementation will make bones dense but as brittle as a piece of chalk. Trying to reduce the risk of hip fractures and compression fractures due to weak, osteoporotic bone is more about strengthening the bone matrix than just making the bones denser. Whereas Fosamax and Actonel have clinical research showing their ability to reduce fractures, Fosteum has no such data. On the other hand, strontium ranelate is an alternative supplement that does show clinical evidence that it can reduce the risk of fractures.